PDA

View Full Version : Has your stance on Selig changed?


soltrain21
08-12-2005, 01:21 PM
I know a lot of you guys are not big fans of Selig. But have your opinions and thoughts on Selig changed ever since all this steroid BS started happening?

I used to hate Selig, myself. However, recently I have been on his side. I kind of actually feel for him, believe it or not. He seems to be trying his hardest to make "his" game clean, but the players union are being complete dicks about it.

I was 10 years old when the strike stuff happen, so obviously I do not understand all of the ins and outs of it. However, over the last few months it has been really hard NOT to be on Selig's side.


What are your thoughts?

Lip Man 1
08-12-2005, 01:41 PM
Question that Bud has yet to answer and that Canseco may in his next book....did Selig 'know' about the steroid use and turn a blind eye to it because 'chicks dig the long ball...'

I tend to think the answer to that question (if ever factualy produced) might change your opinion.

Outside of that I still think he's a clown, an ass kisser and someone with no backbone who only takes a stand unless he's sure that 'public' opinion or more importantly the majority of owner's opinions are on one side of an issue.

Bud doesn't stick his neck out on anything.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
08-12-2005, 01:45 PM
All his protestations to the contrary, I'm fully convinced he damn well knew that juicing was rampant in baseball throughout the 1990s and only started moving his ass when the public mood finally started to turn against the 'roided out HR-hitting, hopping, juicing freaks.

Bud is scum in my book.

wdelaney72
08-12-2005, 01:47 PM
Bud is simply responding to the roids because he has to. My opinion of him has always been that he's a turd. That remains unchanged.

Stroker Ace
08-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Even worse than before.

PaulDrake
08-12-2005, 02:12 PM
Question that Bud has yet to answer and that Canseco may in his next book....did Selig 'know' about the steroid use and turn a blind eye to it because 'chicks dig the long ball...'

I tend to think the answer to that question (if ever factualy produced) might change your opinion.

Outside of that I still think he's a clown, an ass kisser and someone with no backbone who only takes a stand unless he's sure that 'public' opinion or more importantly the majority of owner's opinions are on one side of an issue.

Bud doesn't stick his neck out on anything.

Lip Couldn't have said it better myself. If you want to be cynical this is a cheap way to get to post #900.

Ol' No. 2
08-12-2005, 02:20 PM
Question that Bud has yet to answer and that Canseco may in his next book....did Selig 'know' about the steroid use and turn a blind eye to it because 'chicks dig the long ball...'

I tend to think the answer to that question (if ever factualy produced) might change your opinion.

Outside of that I still think he's a clown, an ass kisser and someone with no backbone who only takes a stand unless he's sure that 'public' opinion or more importantly the majority of owner's opinions are on one side of an issue.

Bud doesn't stick his neck out on anything.

LipThere's certainly no question in my mind that Selig knew about the steroids being used. Hell, EVERYBODY knew. Who could possibly be so dense as to look at the 1998 version of Sosa and not know? There was lots of whispering about it at the time, but no one said it publicly. McGwire was outed by a St. Louis writer. Canseco admitted in the 80's to taking steroids. My question is, who in the world DIDN'T know?

But at the same time, the owners also knew and the GM's knew. They could have done something, too, but they were too busy counting the money they were making from the people surging through the turnstyles to watch the HR races. This is not to absolve Selig in any way, but there are a lot of others who should share equally.

Madvora
08-12-2005, 03:06 PM
I agree with a few posts above. Bud was forced to care. If they weren't called into congress, he never would have done anything. Even now that he says he wants to do something, he can't because the players union is too damn strong.
You're doing a great job Bud!

cubhater
08-12-2005, 04:18 PM
All his protestations to the contrary, I'm fully convinced he damn well knew that juicing was rampant in baseball throughout the 1990s and only started moving his ass when the public mood finally started to turn against the 'roided out HR-hitting, hopping, juicing freaks.

Bud is scum in my book.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

TornLabrum
08-12-2005, 04:24 PM
Question that Bud has yet to answer and that Canseco may in his next book....did Selig 'know' about the steroid use and turn a blind eye to it because 'chicks dig the long ball...'

I tend to think the answer to that question (if ever factualy produced) might change your opinion.

Outside of that I still think he's a clown, an ass kisser and someone with no backbone who only takes a stand unless he's sure that 'public' opinion or more importantly the majority of owner's opinions are on one side of an issue.

Bud doesn't stick his neck out on anything.

Lip

Just my opinion, but I think Selig's attitude towards steroids was the same as Charles Comiskey's in 1919. He didn't want to hear about it, so he ignored all the warning signs.

chaerulez
08-12-2005, 04:28 PM
Yes, the whole steroid era of baseball happened because of Selig. He knew during the HR chase that McGwire and Sosa weren't doing the natural way. He just decided he would do anything to get the fans back to watching this steroid freak show. So I don't feel sorry that hes stuck in the mess he's gotten himself in.

Hangar18
08-12-2005, 04:56 PM
Bud Selig is nothing but a YES man to the real guys who are running the Commissioners office, among them, a certain Jerry Reinsdorf. He turned a blind-eye to the Steroid Craze, Foolishly ushered in a 2nd Expansion, then after realizing there were too many teams, tried to FOLD 2 of them. Told his good pal that his was one of the teams to be folded (and avoided selling his team in order to make MORE $$$$$ by being Contracted by MLB), issued an edict calling for all teams to get new stadiums in order to survive in the mlb,
Eliminated the All-Star Game Rotation (in which every team fairly gets the AS Game) in favor of a new system where he "Awards" the AS game to a team
that most certainly is in his favor. He "allowed" the Diamondbacks to determine which league they wanted to be placed in, in a veiled maneuver allowing him to put his Brewers into the National League. Regarding steroids, he failed to put together a STRONG policy, instead going with the weak 10 game suspension ......... I could go on and on and on .......

He is easily one of the WORST of all time,
and over time, we'll hear about how crooked the office really was ............

Rooney4Prez56
08-12-2005, 05:14 PM
I'm more PO'd at the players union. But that doesn't mean Selig's off the hook!

ode to veeck
08-14-2005, 12:22 PM
Once a used car salesman always a used car salesman, but the owners are in collusion here, but continuing to support the sham of a comissioner. Baseball's integrity is somewhere between pro wrestling and bozing and headed inthe wrong direction

worst MLB comissioner in my lifetime and pretty consistently pathetic

I'm am all in favor of ending MLB's exception to anti-trust law

veeter
08-14-2005, 12:32 PM
America is a country of excess. We want big cars, big houses and big homeruns. When I say "we" I mean casual fans. Casual fans are responsible for surges in attendance. Sosa and his fellow juicers were flavors of the day, so the casual fans went. It was the hard core intelligent fan's voice that was drowned out by all the cheering. I think all of us knew Sosa was on 'roids but was anybody going to listen, hell no. Shammy afterall was "saving" baseball.

Daver
08-14-2005, 12:36 PM
The fact that Bud could not use the huge advantage the court of public opinion gave him to ram a tougher drug penalty past the MLBPA only proves he is both incompetent and spineless.

Fenway
08-14-2005, 12:42 PM
another view on the mess


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/08/14/a_testing_time_for_the_game?mode=PF
Selig, in a move praised by some of his toughest critics, also has proposed hiring an independent party to administer the testing program, as the Olympics do with the World Anti-Doping Agency. The current program is run jointly by the owners and players through a four-person Health Policy Advisory Committee.

In reacting to the failed test of a player who was a near-certain Hall of Famer but now may never get close to Cooperstown, Selig said he felt as low as he has in a long time. But Lucchino said, ''I see it as indicative that there is a system that is at work, and remember, this is just the first year of that system. The commissioner should take some pride in the fact that it is working."

Asked whether he was in favor of Selig unilaterally imposing tougher testing standards without the approval of the union, Lucchino said, ''I'm comfortable with the guidance and direction he's taking on his efforts to eradicate anabolic steroids from the game. I'm not about to offer an opinion on what the commissioner should do or not do."

ode to veeck
08-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I think all of us knew Sosa was on 'roids but was anybody going to listen, hell no. Shammy afterall was "saving" baseball.

Is that you Moronatti?

Flight #24
08-14-2005, 03:51 PM
I take a slightly different view. IMO Bud's neither a devil or a saint. But he's done a fairly decent job at working within the confines of the system that exists. That means:

- Getting consensus among a group of owners that traditionally don't agree on much
- Working with a players union that's not only the strongest of it's kind, but also extremely used to getting its way and little else

Have there been issues? Sure. But IMO there are a lot of things that fall under "the best that could be done" (i.e. the drug policy), or "unforseeable, not my fault"(ASG).

Still, with all that, under his watch you have improvements in the financial balance (however small they may be), some semblance of a drug policy, and the wildcard. To me, those are all positive.

So I'd give him a c+/b- type of grade for some accomplishments under difficult conditions.

Trav
08-14-2005, 04:11 PM
Mine has not changed one bit. This is still the guy who doesn't think baseball is exciting enough and turned a blind eye to steroids and implemented the WC and interleague play. I hate to see what is next.

TornLabrum
08-14-2005, 04:13 PM
Mine has not changed one bit. This is still the guy who doesn't think baseball is exciting enough and turned a blind eye to steroids and implemented the WC and interleague play. I hate to see what is next.

You forgot determining home field advantage for the World Series based on the final score of an exhibition game.

Daver
08-14-2005, 04:18 PM
I take a slightly different view. IMO Bud's neither a devil or a saint. But he's done a fairly decent job at working within the confines of the system that exists. That means:

- Getting consensus among a group of owners that traditionally don't agree on much
- Working with a players union that's not only the strongest of it's kind, but also extremely used to getting its way and little else

Have there been issues? Sure. But IMO there are a lot of things that fall under "the best that could be done" (i.e. the drug policy), or "unforseeable, not my fault"(ASG).

Still, with all that, under his watch you have improvements in the financial balance (however small they may be), some semblance of a drug policy, and the wildcard. To me, those are all positive.

So I'd give him a c+/b- type of grade for some accomplishments under difficult conditions.

He has you fooled too then.

Let's revisit what Bud has done while he has been commisioner of baseball.

He did away with the league president's office, and brought those responibilties to his desk, because they were a threat to his power.

He brokered the sale of the Florida Marlins to the owner of the Montreal Expos, and assumed ownership of said Expos, to keep MLB out of Canadian bankruptcy court, and loaned Jeffrey Loria the money needed to put the deal over the top from MLB funds.

He then turned around and brokered the sale of the Red Sox to a group that included one of the ex-partners of the Marlins. MLB still owns the former Expos in a clear cut conflict of interest BTW.

He broke the umpires union, and made sure that the union that replaced it answers to his office, and his office only.

He ignored the problem of illegal drugs in his league until it no longer served his purpose, then used the court of public opinion to alter the CBA, but did not have the spine to use the oppurtunity given him to make his policy strong enough to be effective.

I will not go into some of his dumber decisions, like mandating that an exhibition game played at mid season decide home field advantage for the World Series.

Trav
08-14-2005, 04:19 PM
You forgot determining home field advantage for the World Series based on the final score of an exhibition game.

You are correct. It seems that I simply can't remember all of the reasons I don't like Bud.

Parrothead
08-14-2005, 04:42 PM
You forgot determining home field advantage for the World Series based on the final score of an exhibition game.

I have to say I don't mind having the All Star Game determining the Home field advantage. It is just as stupid as alternating every year. It should be the team with the best record having home field advantage.

TornLabrum
08-14-2005, 05:31 PM
I have to say I don't mind having the All Star Game determining the Home field advantage. It is just as stupid as alternating every year. It should be the team with the best record having home field advantage.

Why?

Chips
08-14-2005, 09:00 PM
Bud Selig is nothing but a YES man to the real guys who are running the Commissioners office, among them, a certain Jerry Reinsdorf. He turned a blind-eye to the Steroid Craze, Foolishly ushered in a 2nd Expansion, then after realizing there were too many teams, tried to FOLD 2 of them. Told his good pal that his was one of the teams to be folded (and avoided selling his team in order to make MORE $$$$$ by being Contracted by MLB), issued an edict calling for all teams to get new stadiums in order to survive in the mlb,
Eliminated the All-Star Game Rotation (in which every team fairly gets the AS Game) in favor of a new system where he "Awards" the AS game to a team
that most certainly is in his favor. He "allowed" the Diamondbacks to determine which league they wanted to be placed in, in a veiled maneuver allowing him to put his Brewers into the National League. Regarding steroids, he failed to put together a STRONG policy, instead going with the weak 10 game suspension ......... I could go on and on and on .......

He is easily one of the WORST of all time,
and over time, we'll hear about how crooked the office really was ............

I have never really been a big fan of Bud Selig, and every one of the above mentioned reasons is one of them. I still don't like him

StillMissOzzie
08-15-2005, 12:50 AM
He has you fooled too then.

Let's revisit what Bud has done while he has been commisioner of baseball.

He did away with the league president's office, and brought those responibilties to his desk, because they were a threat to his power.

He brokered the sale of the Florida Marlins to the owner of the Montreal Expos, and assumed ownership of said Expos, to keep MLB out of Canadian bankruptcy court, and loaned Jeffrey Loria the money needed to put the deal over the top from MLB funds.

He then turned around and brokered the sale of the Red Sox to a group that included one of the ex-partners of the Marlins. MLB still owns the former Expos in a clear cut conflict of interest BTW.

He broke the umpires union, and made sure that the union that replaced it answers to his office, and his office only.

He ignored the problem of illegal drugs in his league until it no longer served his purpose, then used the court of public opinion to alter the CBA, but did not have the spine to use the oppurtunity given him to make his policy strong enough to be effective.

I will not go into some of his dumber decisions, like mandating that an exhibition game played at mid season decide home field advantage for the World Series.

Well said and well stated, Daver. Selig waited until the tidal wave of public opinion, as well as the threat of Congressional action, mounted to the point where something had to be done, and then he ran out to the front of the parade as if he was leading it all along.

I agree with all of this as well as the opinion of Ol' No. 2 and others, who pointed out that ownership kept their heads in the sand to encourage the McGwire/Sosa HR race to "save" MLB. Selig is simply the front end of the fish that is rotting from the head down.

SMO
:gulp:

Edit: While I am usually not a Skip Bayless fan, I recommend his column on Powerless Bud on Page 2 of ESPN.com for an interesting take on just why Selig can't take action-the MLBPA.

harwar
08-15-2005, 07:32 AM
It seems to me that there is a huge power struggle going on right now but its kept mostly out of the public eye.

Railsplitter
08-15-2005, 09:30 AM
Selig was never the brightest of owners, so he's easy for the owners to manipulate.

Flight #24
08-15-2005, 09:45 AM
Well said and well stated, Daver. Selig waited until the tidal wave of public opinion, as well as the threat of Congressional action, mounted to the point where something had to be done, and then he ran out to the front of the parade as if he was leading it all along.



Or he waited until he had enough public opinion that any effort on his part would amount to more than tilting at windmills. If you read anything from Fehr on drug testing prior to this year, there was NO WAY the MLBPA was allowing anything. Even now, do you really think Selig has the ability to implement increased penalties and make it stick? Nope.

IMO Bayless has it right. That's not to say that Bud's a hero, great commissioner, altruistic guy. He's certainly acted in his own and the owners financial interests, particularly in terms of franchise sales. But a lot of the other things have been good for the sport, including breaking the umps union (because it created some accountability for umpires, not specifically for union-breaking), implementing the luxury tax, and implementing some ideas that in general, have increased the attention on the sport (wildcard, interleague play).

Which is why I gave him a C+ grade. Some accomplishments, and some bad decisions, but all done in the face of some pretty serious obstacles. A lot of the criticisms of him come down to "He should have done more", or as I said earlier, criticize a decision where there is no right answer (ASG).

brewcrew/chisox
08-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Selig was never the brightest of owners, so he's easy for the owners to manipulate.

Sorry Railsplitter; kinda gotta disagree with you on that one. When he convinced taxpayers to buy him a new stadium and then cut payroll to $30 Million right before selling the team for a huge profit, Selig essentially did to Milwaukee what the Monorail guy did to Springfield (Simpsons' reference). I can just point to one article on Wispolitics.com that kind of covers this but there are hundreds out there.

"The cost of the stadium itself proved to be a slippery fish to get hold of. Public estimates rose steadily from $170 million in 1988 to $320 million in 1995, and those numbers were incomplete because they never adequately counted interest costs on borrowed money. The real cost to date is around $600 million.

In addition, throughout the debate there were always gaps in the Brewers ownersí statements of how much they would contribute and how certain items including the retractable roof would be financed.

In short, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig as chief owner before assuming his present post never came clean with the public, legislature and governor while the stadium bill was being considered, and after it passed the secrecy and vagueness have continued."

Here is the link.

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=4974

So, essentially, Selig convinced taxpayers to buy a stadium for over 5 times the original price, he dismantled the team (ala $30 million dollar payroll in 2004) to produce two decades of futility, and then sell the club for $223 million dollars.

Oh, And by the way, Miller Park was a financial windfall in 2001, when the team drew a club record 2.8 million fans despite losing 94 games. The Brewers were baseball's most profitable team after revenue sharing, netting $16.1 million.

Ethical? No way jose. But pretty damn bright to fool a whole state and then count his Millions on the way out unscathed.:angry:

Sigh, I'm just glad that man is now as far away from the Brewers as possible. For once, Brewer fans have something to be hopeful for. Our payroll is increasing, they have a decent farm system and their team contains a nice young core. Did anyone see Corey Hart hit one out yesterday?

Irishsox1
08-15-2005, 01:06 PM
The role and power of the MLB commissioner was totally destroyed by the 1994 strike. After the strike, the real control of baseball lies with the players union. The commissioner doesn't have any real power. He can request changes, but its up to the players union to accept any of the changes. Bud wanted a stronger steroid punishment, but the players union got it down to 10 games. Bud is trying his best, but with complete jerk-offs like Donald Fehr and Curt Shilling, the players union will always be suspect of the owners and anything the owners request, they will reject. When Curt Shilling was asked about if steroids were bad for baseball all he commented on was that if any testing was done, that it had to be done by an outside source, because he doesn't trust the owners at all. This is how the players union thinks...not what's best for baseball, but how are the owners trying to screw us. Now that people are asking questions about steroids, Shilling says the owners knew what was going on and that they are to blame. Quite convenient.

Yes, for years the owners have treated the players like crap. But since 1995, the players union are the real scum bags of this whole equation.

Daver
08-15-2005, 04:33 PM
IMO Bayless has it right. That's not to say that Bud's a hero, great commissioner, altruistic guy. He's certainly acted in his own and the owners financial interests, particularly in terms of franchise sales. But a lot of the other things have been good for the sport, including breaking the umps union (because it created some accountability for umpires, not specifically for union-breaking), implementing the luxury tax, and implementing some ideas that in general, have increased the attention on the sport (wildcard, interleague play).


How has the luxury tax improved the sport?

Expanding the playoffs, as well as interleague play were done to increase attendance, any other benefit it may have had is purely secondary, it was done to increase team revenue.

The umpires union was not broken to make umpires accountable, it was done because the umpires union was demanding more than MLB was will willing to pay, plain and simple. The accountability had always been there.

Flight #24
08-15-2005, 04:37 PM
How has the luxury tax improved the sport?



Well, it was widely reported that the Yankees did not make a play for Beltran because of the tax implications, even though he called them and said he'd come in cheaper than the Mets offer. That's not the same as say the Royals being able to keep him, but it's an improvement.

And aren't all new developments like the WC generally geared around increasing attendance & revenues? That equates to increased interest in the sport, no?

Daver
08-15-2005, 04:42 PM
Well, it was widely reported that the Yankees did not make a play for Beltran because of the tax implications, even though he called them and said he'd come in cheaper than the Mets offer. That's not the same as say the Royals being able to keep him, but it's an improvement.

And aren't all new developments like the WC generally geared around increasing attendance & revenues? That equates to increased interest in the sport, no?

The luxury tax has done a fine job of putting more money certain owners pockets.


I did state that any other benefit was secondary did I not?

Flight #24
08-15-2005, 04:54 PM
The luxury tax has done a fine job of putting more money certain owners pockets.


I did state that any other benefit was secondary did I not?

Indeedy you did, my mistake.

I guess it wasn't my expectation that owners and/or the commish not act at least partially in their own interest. Personally, I don't care if owners or players make a lot of money - more power to them. I care more if what they do while achieving that personal goal ends up bettering the sport.

IMO, when teams at the top have to think hard about whether or not sign yet another top FA, that's good because it helps spread top-level talent around. The luxury tax has, however marginally, enabled that. The wildcard, while it may give more $$$ to the owners, has increased interest in the sport.

As for the umps union, I'll have to do some digging, but IIRC not all the umps were rehired, with some that were let go generally considered to be pretty bad. I also recall baseball being much more directive with the umps about the strike zone after, and talk that they couldn't really do that before the union-breaking. So again, while it may have cut costs for owners and increased profits, those are both good things to me.

EDIT: Found the umps union note: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1999/09/01/umpires_wednesday_ap/

Again, not that this wasn't financially motivated, but among the umps not brought back were some notorious ones: Eric Gregg, Terry Tata, Joe West.

Daver
08-15-2005, 05:19 PM
EDIT: Found the umps union note: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1999/09/01/umpires_wednesday_ap/

Again, not that this wasn't financially motivated, but among the umps not brought back were some notorious ones: Eric Gregg, Terry Tata, Joe West.

They were also the most vocal and standfast in wage negotiations, as well as being lousy umpires with a very high opinion of themselves.

chitownhawkfan
08-16-2005, 01:43 AM
This is kind of rough water I am jumping into but here goes nothing.
1. I think breaking the umpires union was necessary, these peoples perception were way off if they thought they could jeopardize a baseball season.

2. The WC race is usually the best in baseball and I find it to be exciting.

3. Home Field Advantage determined by an exhibition is stupid, but so was the every other year rotation. I know all the arguments about the unbalanced schedule/strength of league, but it works in the NHL and NBA, and as unfair as it might be I think it is a lot better than having a mediocre player from a last place team decide who gets home field.

4. I could do without interleague, but at the same time I dont think the game is in awful shape because of it. I like some of the regional rivalries it promotes that I wouldnt be able to watch otherwise.

5. What was the point of the league presidents, wasnt this kind of an unnecessary position that just led to power struggles amongst the leagues.

6. While he hasnt made a lot of obvious changes he kind of has had his hands tied by the players association. It wouldnt matter if Bud wanted steroid testing, without congressional pressure it would have never happenned.

7. I love the luxury tax, it is the closest thing that MLB will get to an even playing field akin to the NFL. Since the greedy rich owners will not agree to revenue sharing, it is the best we will get.

FredManrique
08-16-2005, 02:50 AM
This is kind of rough water I am jumping into but here goes nothing.
1. I think breaking the umpires union was necessary, these peoples perception were way off if they thought they could jeopardize a baseball season.

2. The WC race is usually the best in baseball and I find it to be exciting.

3. Home Field Advantage determined by an exhibition is stupid, but so was the every other year rotation. I know all the arguments about the unbalanced schedule/strength of league, but it works in the NHL and NBA, and as unfair as it might be I think it is a lot better than having a mediocre player from a last place team decide who gets home field.

4. I could do without interleague, but at the same time I dont think the game is in awful shape because of it. I like some of the regional rivalries it promotes that I wouldnt be able to watch otherwise.

5. What was the point of the league presidents, wasnt this kind of an unnecessary position that just led to power struggles amongst the leagues.

6. While he hasnt made a lot of obvious changes he kind of has had his hands tied by the players association. It wouldnt matter if Bud wanted steroid testing, without congressional pressure it would have never happenned.

7. I love the luxury tax, it is the closest thing that MLB will get to an even playing field akin to the NFL. Since the greedy rich owners will not agree to revenue sharing, it is the best we will get.

I can't help getting in on this. I was thinking about doing the numbered list thing, and you've hit all the points I wanted to comment on :) But I'll make slightly different comments

1. The umpires.... that was a weird situation. I thought it was stupid how they let some of the guys who quit back in. That seemed like kind of a neither-here-nor-there kind of solution.

Same deal with Questec. So they wanted to use this thing, to improve accuracy and accountability and whatever, but they don't use it in all the stadiums and Curt Schilling just winds smashing one of the things to pieces. Then nothing improves and everyone involved loses credibility. If they want to improve something, they should make a decision and implement it as thoroughly as possible, and make sure everyone knows what's going on. No more half-assedness.

2. In general, I agree with you. I think the Wild Card tends to produce more penant races and more good games in September. But not always: I remember in 1998, when the Braves, Astros, and Padres all won over a 100 games, and all easily made it into the playoffs, while the Cubs limped in on Kevin Tapani, Terry Muholland, and Rod Beck's noodle arms. If there had been no playoffs, the Padres, Astros, and Braves would have been in an amazing race, and the Cubs would have been at home where they belonged.

3. Absolutely. This All Star game thing is a ridiculous idea, and I hope this is the last year they do it.

4. If the Wild Card gives us more exciting games in Sept, interleague gives us more boring Royals-Pirates games in June. Given the choice, I'd rather see more inter-division games; games that have a direct impact on the standings.

5. Sounds right to me.

6. If you get caught with steriods in the NFL, or the Olympics, you're done. That's it. No one questions this; it's just accepted and understood by society. Why is it so f-ing hard for baseball players?

7. I don't think it's the greedy owners in baseball. They see that every team in the NFL makes money. I think it's mainly one greedy owner who doesn't want to share. I think the luxury tax is a step in the right direction, but more is needed. After all, the Yankees only managed to afford Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, and Jaret Wright last winter, instead of Johnson, Pavano, Wright, AND Carlos Beltran.

So that's my 7 cents.

ewokpelts
08-16-2005, 08:39 AM
I know a lot of you guys are not big fans of Selig. But have your opinions and thoughts on Selig changed ever since all this steroid BS started happening?

I used to hate Selig, myself. However, recently I have been on his side. I kind of actually feel for him, believe it or not. He seems to be trying his hardest to make "his" game clean, but the players union are being complete dicks about it.

I was 10 years old when the strike stuff happen, so obviously I do not understand all of the ins and outs of it. However, over the last few months it has been really hard NOT to be on Selig's side.


What are your thoughts?
my opinion of him has changed since 2002, but not because of his roids stance....he's as guilty as bush in looking the other way while guys were juicing....didnt the brewers get a HUGE attendace jump when the cubs and cards came into town with mac and sham in tow? Or was that just because the brewers were "back" in the national league?

Gene

Lip Man 1
08-16-2005, 11:45 AM
Fred:

Regarding Steinbrenner's 'opposition' to revenue sharing, I'm reminded of this comment from a few years ago. I had just read a story that said the Expos spent less revenue sharing money then anyone on the team and that some were wondering where that money went. Steinbrenner's comment went along the lines of 'it all went to the relatives of ownership who were on the team payroll.'

I think the comment proved to be accurate. I can't blame George in this one.

I'm also reminded of Reds owner Carl Linder's published comments to both the Cincinnati Inquirer and the Post from the winter before the new stadium opened. He was quoted as saying that he told then GM Jim Bowden to 'cut' the overall payroll despite the new park opening. When asked why by reporters, he said 'because we'll be drawing so many fans, our revenue sharing money is going to go down.' Give him points for honesty but what does that say about the system to start with?

As Daver stated it's lisenced welfare and the folks who are getting the money have a record of not spending it on improving the team in direct violation of Bud's standing orders....yet I don't see Bud investigating...do you?

Finally this is from Phil Rogers' interview with WSI in August 2002:
ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isnít a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissionerís office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesnít like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Lip

chitownhawkfan
08-16-2005, 01:05 PM
Taking the money and not spending it is awful and with the owners in baseball I can easily see how it would happen. Thats why we need an NFL type system, where there is a minimum salary and a cap, that would ensure that the redistribution goes back to the product on the field for all the teams rather than a couple.

Daver
08-16-2005, 02:40 PM
Taking the money and not spending it is awful and with the owners in baseball I can easily see how it would happen. Thats why we need an NFL type system, where there is a minimum salary and a cap, that would ensure that the redistribution goes back to the product on the field for all the teams rather than a couple.

A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margin.

nitetrain8601
08-16-2005, 02:54 PM
Bud is simply responding to the roids because he has to. My opinion of him has always been that he's a turd. That remains unchanged.

Ding Ding Ding, Winnah!!!

chitownhawkfan
08-16-2005, 04:47 PM
A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margin.

It also guarantees competitive balance, something that is sorely lacking in MLB. Personally I dont care who makes the money, the players or the owners, I just want a salary cap for the health of the league.

FredManrique
08-17-2005, 12:22 PM
Fred:

Regarding Steinbrenner's 'opposition' to revenue sharing, I'm reminded of this comment from a few years ago. I had just read a story that said the Expos spent less revenue sharing money then anyone on the team and that some were wondering where that money went. Steinbrenner's comment went along the lines of 'it all went to the relatives of ownership who were on the team payroll.'

I think the comment proved to be accurate. I can't blame George in this one.

I'm also reminded of Reds owner Carl Linder's published comments to both the Cincinnati Inquirer and the Post from the winter before the new stadium opened. He was quoted as saying that he told then GM Jim Bowden to 'cut' the overall payroll despite the new park opening. When asked why by reporters, he said 'because we'll be drawing so many fans, our revenue sharing money is going to go down.' Give him points for honesty but what does that say about the system to start with?

As Daver stated it's lisenced welfare and the folks who are getting the money have a record of not spending it on improving the team in direct violation of Bud's standing orders....yet I don't see Bud investigating...do you?

Finally this is from Phil Rogers' interview with WSI in August 2002:
ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isnít a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissionerís office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesnít like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Lip

I agree that the luxury tax system isn't that good -- but I do think it's a step in the right direction. I also don't *necessarily* have such a huge problem with team failing to use the revenue sharing money on player salaries. Before the luxury tax was implemented, you had the Devil Rays signing guys like Greg Vaughn, Roberto Hernandez and Ben Grieve, which drove up the prices for everyone, partially leading to the mess baseball is in now. If the Rays want to spend that money on draft picks and player development, I see that as a good thing.

The real test will be when these low-revenue teams have to make choices on re-signing their homegrown star talent. Then we'll see if the luxury tax works.

I realize this is kind of an altruistic viewpoint, though. And the Expos situation totally sucked, no doubt about that. But I think Jeffry Loria deserves a share of the blame too.

Bud has had to deal with a ton of crap during his tenure: labour disputes, disparity of wealth, and now steriods. I don't envy him that. I would take a mentally strong, savvy, charismatic individual to his job, and unfortunately he probably just doesn't fit the bill.

My opinion of Bud is that he's tried to cover up baseball's problems with gimmicks and compromises. Now what we have is a complicated structure held together with popsicle sticks and scotch tape, that needs constant attention if it's not to collapse.

Lip Man 1
08-17-2005, 12:52 PM
Fred:

I'm struck by your comment that you don't necessarily have a problem with revenue sharing money not going on player salaries.

Where do you think it should go? Certainly their seems to be evidence that in some cases it's going in ownerships pockets. Is that the purpose of revenue sharing?

Here's how to check to see if it's working....when was the last time the Pirates won anything, or the Brewers or the Royals or the Reds or the Rockies?

Revenue sharing is a nice theory but it doesn't amount to much when the people running the down and out teams are greedy and stupid does it?

Lip

Daver
08-17-2005, 04:50 PM
It also guarantees competitive balance, something that is sorely lacking in MLB..

It does no such thing.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2005, 05:20 PM
A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margin.By itself, yes. But as a part of an overall package including significant revenue sharing and a salary minimum, it not only greatly enhances competitive balance, but also helps the survivability of teams throughout the league. That's essentially what you have in the NFL and NBA. There are still teams in those leagues that continue to stink every year, but it's not because they're starved for revenues by the richer clubs. It's because they have incompetant management.

Revenue sharing is not "welfare" in any sense of the word. IIRC, gate receipts are split 80/20, and other local revenues accrue only to the home team. Without the other 29 teams the Yankees revenues would be a big, fat $0. Why should those teams not get a real share of all the money they make?

FredManrique
08-17-2005, 07:23 PM
Fred:

I'm struck by your comment that you don't necessarily have a problem with revenue sharing money not going on player salaries.

Where do you think it should go? Certainly their seems to be evidence that in some cases it's going in ownerships pockets. Is that the purpose of revenue sharing?

Here's how to check to see if it's working....when was the last time the Pirates won anything, or the Brewers or the Royals or the Reds or the Rockies?

Revenue sharing is a nice theory but it doesn't amount to much when the people running the down and out teams are greedy and stupid does it?

Lip

Sorry, I should have clarified my opinion a little bit further: I am absolutely opposed to owners pocketing luxury tax money as profit, as I am owners holding cities hostage for stadium deals.

However, I don't necessarily have a problem with revenue sharing money not being spent on *major league* payroll -- provided that it goes toward signing draft picks, international scouting, player development, coaching, and general organizational development.

That's a heavily qualified statement, I know. But I think building from within is the best way to build sustainably competitive teams, and strengthen bonds with fans. I also think a team's major league payroll is not the best way to measure how hard a team is trying to win.

That said, it seems obvious that some owners aren't doing anything with the revenue sharing money except keeping it... and the two prime examples are both Selig teams.

The current system is obviously flawed, but I think it is a step towards a system in which the team that builds the most effective organization wins.

chitownhawkfan
08-17-2005, 09:28 PM
It does no such thing.

When everybody has roughly the same amount of money to spend, the competition is greater. In the NFL every team has a chance to compete, small market or not, because of revenue sharing. Under the current MLB system there are 10 teams that have no realistic shot at winning a world series. So, yes it does guarantee competitive balance.

Daver
08-17-2005, 09:37 PM
When everybody has roughly the same amount of money to spend, the competition is greater. In the NFL every team has a chance to compete, small market or not, because of revenue sharing. Under the current MLB system there are 10 teams that have no realistic shot at winning a world series. So, yes it does guarantee competitive balance.

Comparing MLB to the NFL is comparing apples to kumquats.

The NFL shares 100% of all revenue, MLB shares a very small pool of money as it is compared to total revenue. The luxury tax, as it stands right now is a complete joke that basically punishes the Yankees and the Red Sox for running their business well.

That being said, the NFL salary cap does little more than guarantee that small market teams enjoy the same profit margins that large market teams have, because that is the way Pete Rozelle designed it to work.

chitownhawkfan
08-18-2005, 12:11 AM
I agree with you, the Luxury Tax is a joke, but it is better than nothing. Personally I think baseball should use the NFL system. The only reason we cant is because of Fehr and the bastards at the MLBPA.

Daver
08-18-2005, 04:27 PM
I agree with you, the Luxury Tax is a joke, but it is better than nothing. Personally I think baseball should use the NFL system. The only reason we cant is because of Fehr and the bastards at the MLBPA.

George Steinbrennar strongly disagrees with you.

chitownhawkfan
08-18-2005, 11:48 PM
He does, along with probably six or seven others. But i couldnt imagine how the majority of owners wouldnt be for it.